Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is the average wage in Ireland?

Options
123578

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    antoobrien wrote: »
    It is on gross pay, so it wouldn't take pension levy into account.

    It should include TDs salaries as they are linked to certain grades of the public service.
    So in the purposes of fairness, I think any figures which state changes in public sector pay should exclude the salaries of elected officials, since they, unlike the rest of the PS, voluntarily reduce their own salaries by voting on it. The rest of the public sector don't get that vote.

    Saying that the average reduction over €100k is 40% may be misleading if 95% of those over €100k are TDs who took a 50% cut and the rest (for example) only saw a 10% cut.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    seamus wrote: »
    So in the purposes of fairness, I think any figures which state changes in public sector pay should exclude the salaries of elected officials

    Irrelevant to the question answered and little statistcal impact in any case (226 elected/nominated between the dail and seanad vs 275k-300k odd in the PS).


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,339 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Godge wrote: »
    If you read some of the papers internationally on the public sector premium, reference is regularly made to the fact that the private sector data cannot capture the earnings of self-employed professionals whereas the equivalents are capture in the public sector earnings data. It is one of the possible explanations (of which there are several) for the public sector premium.

    A known unknown to use another explanation

    In terms of the CSO's average wage figures, its done by survey and requires people to respond.

    I haven't read anything that suggest the CSO Earnings and Labour Costs Survey does not capture self-employed although I could be mistaken and although it only captures the average gross.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Irrelevant to the question answered and little statistcal impact in any case (226 elected/nominated between the dail and seanad vs 275k-300k odd in the PS).
    Well not when you're quoting figures for pay drops of people over 100k and over 65k. What proportion of the PS are on more than 100k?

    Overall yes it will make little difference to the averages, but when someone says that those on over 100k took a 40% paycut, I think it's relevant to note which of these are actual employees and which are elected officials.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,701 ✭✭✭creedp


    seamus wrote: »
    Well not when you're quoting figures for pay drops of people over 100k and over 65k. What proportion of the PS are on more than 100k?

    Overall yes it will make little difference to the averages, but when someone says that those on over 100k took a 40% paycut, I think it's relevant to note which of these are actual employees and which are elected officials.


    Since we're getting into the nitty gritty I think it is also important that we specify how many are in the semi-states.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    creedp wrote: »
    Since we're getting into the nitty gritty I think it is also important that we specify how many are in the semi-states.

    I don't think the semi states are counted for these purposes as the wage budgets are not (directly) sate state funded.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    seamus wrote: »
    Well not when you're quoting figures for pay drops of people over 100k and over 65k. What proportion of the PS are on more than 100k?

    The figures were published after a dail question a couple of years ago and soem of it was published on this forum.
    seamus wrote: »
    Overall yes it will make little difference to the averages, but when someone says that those on over 100k took a 40% paycut, I think it's relevant to note which of these are actual employees and which are elected officials.

    Not really, not when they'll all funded from taxpayer funds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,887 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    seamus wrote: »
    So in the purposes of fairness, I think any figures which state changes in public sector pay should exclude the salaries of elected officials, since they, unlike the rest of the PS, voluntarily reduce their own salaries by voting on it. The rest of the public sector don't get that vote.

    Saying that the average reduction over €100k is 40% may be misleading if 95% of those over €100k are TDs who took a 50% cut and the rest (for example) only saw a 10% cut.

    The PS voted on the Croke Park deal and Haddington Road deal (which included the latest paycuts for those over 65k)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Riskymove wrote: »
    The PS voted on the Croke Park deal and Haddington Road deal (which included the latest paycuts for those over 65k)

    Czechoslovakia also agreed to let Hitler invade. Both were achieved by intimidation.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    gaius c wrote: »
    The irony is that the most overpaid in the PS are the ones below both those levels, like the admin staff who regularly pull in €10k more than they would in the private sector. We see it when we're trying to hire as folk turn down firm job offers while waiting on the vague promise of clerical work in the council and then ring us back two months later wondering if the job is still available.

    That's weird as there has been a clerical staff freeze since 2009. Can't imagine you getting that excuse very often.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,375 ✭✭✭DoesNotCompute


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Czechoslovakia also agreed to let Hitler invade. Both were achieved by intimidation.

    Godwin's Law at work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,701 ✭✭✭creedp


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I don't think the semi states are counted for these purposes as the wage budgets are not (directly) sate state funded.

    They are not included in the Govt expenditure figures but they are included in the CSO average pay statistics which are constantly used to claim PS are overpaid to the tune of 50% compared to the private sector. Given apparently using aggregate PS pay figures which include a few TDs salaries could distort can fair comparison I think its only fair to remove the semi-states from the CSO PS average pay figures before sweeping statements are made about this dispicable premium the PS are paid


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Godwin's Law at work.

    All right then, Michael Collins "agreed" to have the King in the 1922 Irish constitution. Likewise the Ukrainian Army "agreed" to withdraw from Crimea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    Godge wrote: »

    One that is often missed is that vast groups of people in the private sector - accountants, lawyers, pharmacists, doctors, dentists etc. are not recorded in the CSO employee data as many of them fall into the category of self-employed. Nearly all of them fall into high-earning categories which then depresses the average private sector wage vis-a-vis the average public sector wage where these high-earning categories are employees.

    My issue with your statement is that these people wouldn't be classed as employees they are business owners. They take a much bigger risk than an employee so the rewards can be greater or an awful lot worse.

    I wouldn't include them in these comparisons for that reason

    I'll also agree with the poster that said the most overpaid people in the PS are the so called lower paid and that's where a lot of the staff are


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Czechoslovakia also agreed to let Hitler invade. Both were achieved by intimidation.

    Czechoslovakia was not involved in the Munich agreement that handed over the Sudentenlad. The subsequent Vienna Awards that lost more land were directly a result of the Munich agreement. The subsequent takeover of the rest of Czechoslovakia was a result of Hitler putting German boots on the ground and meeting no resistance as a result of Czech officially surrendering to the German army. They never agreed to let hitler invade, they just said they wouldn't put up any resistance when he chose to invade (which he was going to do regardless). Hitler invaded without their expressed consent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,567 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Didn't expect that in a thread on wages in Ireland to be fair.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Godge wrote: »
    There are a huge number of problems with any of the comparisons. Lyons touches on some of them himself - level of education, skill requirements, longevity of service etc.

    One that is often missed is that vast groups of people in the private sector - accountants, lawyers, pharmacists, doctors, dentists etc. are not recorded in the CSO employee data as many of them fall into the category of self-employed. Nearly all of them fall into high-earning categories which then depresses the average private sector wage vis-a-vis the average public sector wage where these high-earning categories are employees.

    This compositional issue is one explanation for the public sector premium that has been explained in other countries. Given Ireland's historic culture of tax avoidance, nixers and self-employment, you would expect the public sector premium to be at least as big as other European countries and possibly significantly bigger.

    Unsurprisingly, that is what many of the studies found pre-collapse. What is interesting now is that the two sectors had different responses to the collapse. The private sector saw more forced redundancies but kept pay cuts to a minimum for those who had a job and are now seeing pay rises, quite significant in some sectors. The public sector relied on natural attrition to bring numbers down (and was nearly as successful as the private sector) but relied even more on cutting salaries of existing workers - in some cases the cuts are 40% in total. It is likely that any exercise concluded now to compare pay levels would conclude that certain categories of public servants deserve a pay rise vis-a-vis their private sector counterparts.

    Before anyone asks for stats to back up what I am saying, I have provided them before on a number of occasions, pointing out the relevant stats in the CSO employment and earnings data. Secondly, I am not a public servant (though I was one in the past) so please no rants about that either.


    20 years ago this would be true but now the self employed area is also full of small business. The tiler, and painter that decorates your house that earn about 100-150/day. this may seem huge money however they have to fund there holidays and bank holidays out of this. Most towns and villages have a percentage of these. They have become more plentiful over the last 10 years. In general they work 50+ hours a week.

    You also have the small business owner that runs a cafe or the one's that fix mobile phones, the small argi contractors, those that contract into the agri and building industry. we all know the small sole traders that work out of booth's in shopping centers that repair shoe or put a battery in your watch. The big difference with these and low payed PS is that they work maybe 40-50% longer week for much the same money.

    The Myth that the self employed is full of high earners is exactly that a myth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    kceire wrote: »
    That's weird as there has been a clerical staff freeze since 2009. Can't imagine you getting that excuse very often.

    Oh they take on people alright. Just have to jump through a few hoops to do it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,153 ✭✭✭everdead.ie


    gaius c wrote: »
    Oh they take on people alright. Just have to jump through a few hoops to do it.
    Perhaps its only in some areas? I know someone taken on a few months ago in the HSE(clerical position), maybe this is "categorized" differently so they can take some people on in certain areas?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Perhaps its only in some areas? I know someone taken on a few months ago in the HSE(clerical position), maybe this is "categorized" differently so they can take some people on in certain areas?
    Sometimes those clerical positions are paid through the local university if they're past or present students, so they're not actually on the HSE payroll.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Sometimes those clerical positions are paid through the local university if they're past or present students, so they're not actually on the HSE payroll.

    Or they could be working for the nursing/medical school rather than the hosptial.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,287 ✭✭✭✭Geuze




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,287 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Q4 2013 (Final) Q1 2014 (Preliminary Estimates)
    Quarter Average Weekly Earnings Average Hourly Earnings Average Weekly Hours

    Q1 2013 692.54 22.20 31.2
    Q4 2013 688.78 21.73 31.7
    Q1 2014* 689.88 22.08 31.2

    Quarterly change % +0.2 +1.6 -1.6
    Annual change % -0.4 -0.5 -
    * Preliminary Estimates


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,528 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    In fairness, the more high earners the state has the better. They pay by far the highest portion of taxes. So more high earners, more taxes to support everything.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    gaius c wrote: »
    Oh they take on people alright. Just have to jump through a few hoops to do it.

    Not that many hoops. All positions are advertised on www.publicjobs.ie
    You just have to apply.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    kippy wrote: »
    In fairness, the more high earners the state has the better. They pay by far the highest portion of taxes. So more high earners, more taxes to support everything.

    Eh no it shouldnt this money is always going to amount to a minus figure for the tax payer no matter how you look at it..


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,528 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Eh no it shouldnt this money is always going to amount to a minus figure for the tax payer no matter how you look at it..
    The more high earners in the state the better.
    That should be obvious.
    High earners pay the largest proportion of income tax by far in the country.
    You've obviously thought I meant the more high earners in the Civil service the better - but thats not what I was saying.........


  • Registered Users Posts: 353 ✭✭el pasco


    I don't agree that those income charts ignore non-salary or wages. The 10000 above 250k earn 6B between them, about 600k each. It isn't evenly distributed so there are millionaires in there. In fact the highest earners in the private sector earn far more than the highest earners in the public sector.

    Am pretty sure the 40% differential is a median, or based on the equivalent percentiles.

    What about the amount of money declared as a wage and the money earned but no declared to the tax man


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Geuze wrote: »

    Interesting.

    Once again the figures show that earnings and numbers continue to decrease in the public sector while the private sector sees rises in both wages and numbers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Godge wrote: »
    Interesting.

    Once again the figures show that earnings and numbers continue to decrease in the public sector while the private sector sees rises in both wages and numbers.

    Though these figures can fluctuate on an average basis without any decrease or increase in wages on personell basis. The CSO figures tell us what is happening, not why it is happening. For example the average wage can increase because everyone is getting a pay rise or it can increase because a lot of new people started in positions that pay higher than average wages. Equally if a lot of people were to leave the workforce who were at the top of they payscale and be replaced by people at the bottom then the average wage could decrease.


Advertisement